On another blog, a fellow JoeUser asked the following questions and made the following comments:

I am irritated with the closed-mindedness of organizations with causes. If there is only one way (YOUR way) to reach God … why are there so many divergent paths and religions making the same claim? What makes you think it is even conceivable that a paper trail in excess of 2000 years could contain much resemblance to the original fictions?

I am sure you have heard of the test that goes like this: Get a group of 10 people in a circle and whisper a statement to one person. Then they whisper it to the next and so on. There has never been a valid documented case where the original statement bore much resemblance to the 10th person’s statement. This is simply explained with the fact that people are different and they think ‘differently’. Organizations do not like this concept which they classify as ‘self-serving individualism’.

I must be a fool (as you are want to tell me) because I do not believe that the concepts of lying, deceit and conspiracy, power struggles, suppressing the masses, limiting real knowledge, murder, deception and intrigue are new to this century or any other for that matter. But of course, religious theology was not susceptible to human contamination … of course. I believe these concepts were in existence long before recorded time. Why would this befouling of the truth affecting all of human history, exclude ONLY Christian Doctrine? Only mind dead robots could believe this absurdity.

If there is only one way (YOUR way) to reach God … why are there so many divergent paths and religions making the same claim?

First I would start by defining what I mean by religion.

Theologically, philosophically, or metaphysically speaking, what I mean by religion is an act of homage by which we render to God both privately as individuals and publicly as social beings, the honor, gratitude, worship and obedience due Him and in the way prescribed by Him.

Religion, in the way prescribed by HIm, indicates revealed religion by God Himself.

Based on that I would say that there are so many different paths and religions due either to the ignorance or perversity of people. People are by nature religiously inclined and those who lack knowledge of the true religion, (that is, the one true religion revealed by Almighty God, and there can only be one), invented religions for themselves— religions which differed even as the outlook differed of those who originated them.

Catholic Christianity came into existence in 33AD when Christ founded a Church upon Simon renamed Peter, her first Pope and established Christianity. Modern Judaism was developed by Rabbis after 70AD, Mohammedanism (Islam) was developed in 650, the thousands of various sects that developed within Protestantism began in 1517. They all believe in God yet they are four distinct religions with different doctrines and different belief systems. Reason tells us that since there is but One God, it is impossible to believe that God, Supreme Truth Himself, revealed such contrary doctrines, teachings and worship.

So long as man arranges for himself what he will believe making a great act of faith in his own powers of discernment , there will inevitably be different churches, different paths, and thus different religions.

What makes you think it is even conceivable that a paper trail in excess of 2000 years could contain much resemblance to the original fictions?

As to the claims of Catholic Christianity, there are many ways of approaching the answer. But the simplest way is the historical way.

We begin with the revealed holy religion of the Old Testament, namely Hebraic Judaism. Catholic Christianity is Hebraic Judaism fulfilled. Christ said He came to fulfill the Old Covenant Law and the Prophets and He did. The Jewish religion of the Old Testament was essentially a prepatory religion meant by its very nature to merge into its perfect fulfillment when Christ came. He gave us Christianity which Hebraic Judaism foreshadowed. In the New Testament, and in historical reality, Christ founded a Church and said the gates of Hell would not prevail against it and that He would be with it all the days until the end of the world. His Church and His religion therefore, must be still here and it must have been here all days since His time. That rules out all of the other religions named above. Only Catholic Christianity and the Church has existed and lasted in perpetuity since Christ in 33AD.

Besides Sacred Scripture, Catholic Christianity and the Church has a rich history called Sacred Tradition that goes back 2,000 plus years. We can thank the Apostles and their legitimate successors for keeping Tradition exactly the same as what Christ gave and taught them.

I am not going to try and walk around your self-contained circle of knowledge. It is self-justifying, self-defining and self-tolerant. There is nothing fair about it, nothing democratic about it and nothing free about it. These are all no-no’s in my secular world. Just not my cup of tea I guess.

I will agree that you have a self-contained paper trail … with an absolute disregard for the world around you. After a thousand years of correcting errors, I would not expect you to find any more now… and that is just the point. You have to look for the truth to find it but all you have done is allow yourself to believe what you have been told to believe, without question.

You seem to think that history can only be defined religiously and explained in its entirety from a crusty and too often mistranslated book written even before the Dark Ages when Christianity flourished. Contemporary technology has provided a genealogy for the evolution of man and there is nary a mention of virginal births or any of the other wonders of the bible, go figure.

And when all else fails, the best your scholars could come up with were archaic sayings like “The work of the devil” or “god works in strange ways” or “god has a plan” … and all is well.

Atheism is counted a religion as well because the belief is based on faith, the faith that a higher power does not exist even if it has not been proven. Only Agnostics get nonfaith status as they are skeptics of any side until proven otherwise.

RogueCaptain: Only the religious powers that be seem to have any confusion here and I have to disagree with your reasoning too. I was an agnostic for many years because I refused to take something of such magnitude on faith alone so it was simply a matter of ignoring the inaccuracies and going about my business as usual. After many nagging years, I decided to do my own research. To make this short, I decided that nothing has really changed; I still refuse to take something of such magnitude on faith alone, the only difference now is that I know they cannot prove their case … because they have no empirically data at all to support even one of their biblical claims. And I still go about with business as usual trying to ignore them. I am sure I don’t see any significant or notable changes having taken place. Who did you say does this counting and classifying anyway … I wonder, hehehe?

Just seems silly to me is all, go figure. If they were unable to do this in a couple thousand years, I hardly think 2001 years is going to change anything, do you. No faith involved here just facts … no facts no faith ... no faith no religion ... but you can call me Bill or Bob or Larry or whatever you like ... it doesn't mean or change anything either.

If there is only one way (YOUR way) to reach God … why are there so many divergent paths and religions making the same claim? [/quote]

[quote who="lulapilgrim" reply="1" id="2928191"]I am sure you have heard of the test that goes like this: Get a group of 10 people in a circle and whisper a statement to one person. Then they whisper it to the next and so on. There has never been a valid documented case where the original statement bore much resemblance to the 10th person’s statement. This is simply explained with the fact that people are different and they think ‘differently’. Organizations do not like this concept which they classify as ‘self-serving individualism’.

Yes I know what you are saying about this particular test, but what does that have to do with people passing on God revealed written and oral truths which are part of His one true religion? For example, through Moses, God gave us the Ten Commandments which apply to all people for all times until the end of the world. The Commandments have been passed down from age to age with no changes.

God gave the Commandments to us out of love and for our own good, that is, for our temporal welfare and our eternal salvation. How would the world fare if murder, robbery and defamation of character were not forbidden? There would be an end to all order. Evil and lawlessness would reign and mankind would be like savage beasts in according with their vices and lusts.

So the Ten Commandments were given to us for our own good that peace and order might reign in family, society and state.

You seem to think that history can only be defined religiously and explained in its entirety from a crusty and too often mistranslated book written even before the Dark Ages when Christianity flourished.

In my comments 1 and 2, I employed not a circle of knowledge but rather a lawful spiral argument of which the ends don't meet. We can subject the Holy Bible to the laws of historical criticism --the same as we apply other books. Turns out, they prove to be reliably historical documents. Now these historical documents tell us of a certain historical Person who declared that He was God, justified that claim which no ordinary person could do and established a Church and religion still in the world today.

As far as "self-serving individualism", no. I uphold the the infallible and consistent teachings of the Catholic Church. Christ established His Chruch and gave His authority to certain men and their lawful successors to teach matters of religion and morals throughout the ages until the end of the world. God never intended that the Holy Bible alone be the ultimate guide in religious belief.

I still refuse to take something of such magnitude on faith alone, the only difference now is that I know they cannot prove their case … because they have no empirically data at all to support even one of their biblical claims.

People who will not accept Christ's Church and who insist on puzzling out religious sense for themselves have no one to blame but themselves if they end in skepticism. (If the government (God) establishes an inquiry office as a guide to the city (the Church) and a person refuses to use its services, he is to blame if he gets lost.).

Lulapilgrim, Sorry to disagree with you here but you can find Egyptian writings several thousand years old that list your commandments virtually verbatim … Ever read the Papyrus of Ani, there are some very interesting things in there …

I am not going to do theology because you know I cannot. But I will add this. Everything I say you take as a direct (personal?) attack and that is not the case. I am not trying to criticize you with history. I am trying to point out that factual historical records from that time are far from complete … but it just seems logical that all these miracles and Godly deeds were performed for the salvation of the people; one would think there would have been some records of events from people who were actually there.

Self–serving individualism was used in the context of how I see, how you see me. It was not a reference to you or yours. This is what I mean about self–serving to me. There are few examples I can recall in which you did not make your arguments with theological references and scripture quotes, etc. It made no difference to you (seemingly) considering my religious preference. And the topic matter seemed to have no bearing either. It just seems that you cannot communicate any other way than religiously. Is this how you talk with your friends? Don’t you actually have any of your own feelings? I do not enjoy talking with people who cannot or don’t want to talk about anything but shop.

People who will not accept Christ's Church and who insist on puzzling out religious sense for themselves have no one to blame but themselves if they end in skepticism. (If the government (God) establishes an inquiry office as a guide to the city (the Church) and a person refuses to use its services, he is to blame if he gets lost.).

I have never attempted to puzzle out religion because I do not think that is the least bit practical or necessary. It has always been a very simple logical search for me to prove the validity (or not) of the Big Dog. You know what my conclusions were and that is the end of it for me. Without step 1, the next thousands steps are moot.

Enjoy your religion and bask in all its glory. All I ask is that you try to converse with me, human to human.

I tend to agree. Furthermore, Atheists do not merely disbelieve in God, the militant Atheists hate Him and hate religion, Christianity in particular.

Sorry but atheism to me personally has nothing to do with faith at all … it all has to do with proof. Actually they are exact opposites; I believe things because I can prove them or am willing to accept the proof of others who can provide their proof. You believe in things just because you want to and you call it faith. We can agree to disagree here.

Well, these are the most profound two words you have said to me … “militant Atheists”. I never considered this view and haven’t seen used it before, but it explains much on the slant of your rebuffs. It doesn’t excuse them because I tried time after time to explain myself to little avail. Try to consider me a benign person who has lost their way and only wants to stay lost and my humanity is intact.

You seem to think that I do not have any faith but that is not true. I have faith in myself in my abilities to reason and grow in every way. I have faith in the American people (if not the Government for the last 60 years). I have faith that Nature will endlessly take care of our world. What I do not have is just your Faith.

Lulapilgrim, Sorry to disagree with you here but you can find Egyptian writings several thousand years old that list your commandments virtually verbatim … Ever read the Papyrus of Ani, there are some very interesting things in there …

No I didn't know about the Papyrus of Ani, so thanks for sharing that tidbit of info.

I go tmy history book out and learned that Moses, the Ten Commandments, the Pharao and the Papyrus of Ani were in the time of the 19th dynasty in ancient Egypt or the period known as the New Kingdom. According to the dates, it appears that Moses and the Ten Commandments came before the Papyrus of Ani which was created in 1240BC.

Both Jewish history and Scripture confirm Moses was born at the beginning of the 13th century BC, 1391-1271, the son of Hebrew parents Amram and Jochabed with an older sister Miriam and brother Aaron.

The pharao associated with Moses and punished by God with the 10 plagues of Egypt is Ramsesses II the Great who ruled from 1279-1213 BC. Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt to freedom. At Mt. Sinai, the people through Moses entered into a covenant relationship with the Lord God, the terms of which are codified in the Ten Commandments and the Book of the Covenant.

we jehovah's agnostics have only one duty: go forth every morning at 5:30am or thereabouts block by block, knocking on doors of every residence therein proclaiming to those who open said doors that we've witnessed something but aren't sure what it was.

Everything I say you take as a direct (personal?) attack and that is not the case.

You are correct..it's not the case so don't be concerned about that. I don't take your comments as personal attacks and my comments are not meant as personal attacks.

We disagree but that's no reason we can't enter into a reasoned debate. Genuine dialog is needed and that's why I opened this blog.

Don’t you actually have any of your own feelings? I do not enjoy talking with people who cannot or don’t want to talk about anything but shop.

Your 2 questions deal directly with religion and reaching God. I respond from my frame of reference which is Catholic faith.

I have never attempted to puzzle out religion because I do not think that is the least bit practical or necessary. It has always been a very simple logical search for me to prove the validity (or not) of the Big Dog. You know what my conclusions were and that is the end of it for me. Without step 1, the next thousands steps are moot.

It might be the end of it for you, however, you keep asking challenging questions like these and they are important enough for want of an answer. So here I am doing my best to give you an honest answer.

Enjoy your religion and bask in all its glory.

Obviously I love being Catholic. I have yet to meet anyone who can dissuade me from my Catholic Faith and many have tried.

........ All I ask is that you try to converse with me, human to human.

Sorry but atheism to me personally has nothing to do with faith at all … it all has to do with proof.

Atheism is a belief system that there is no God. Atheism is a belief system based on human faith.

Actually they are exact opposites; I believe things because I can prove them or am willing to accept the proof of others who can provide their proof.

You believe there is no God yet you have no proof there is no God and there is no one else who can provide proof there is no God. So it must be human faith upon which you believe there is no God.

Human faith is something we acquire on our own and is not to be confused with supernatural faith which is a divine or supernatural virtue which disposes the mind to assent freely, with certainty,and on the authority of God to all truths which He has revealed.